4 ms·

Intel has always used the x86 to add incremental improvements which are aimed at improving bottlenecks (Pentium 4 not withstanding). The bad side is that x86 i

by rrmm 10y ago

Intel has always used the x86 to add incremental improvements which are aimed at improving bottlenecks (Pentium 4 not withstanding). The bad side is that x86 is a multilayered blob of random features cobbled together; (I'm glad AMD got to x86-64 first). But it's produced a processor that offers useful things to people along with backwards compatibility. And that seems to be what people want. I wonder if deprecating and eventually removing the ugly parts of the architecture over time would work for Intel (even if they had to bifurcate the architecture). What doesn't work for Intel (and its customers) is huge revolutionary new archs with straight-out-of-research advanced features and no compatibility.

yuhong 10y ago
As an example, it is probably not difficult to create a new x86 version that is user mode compatible with most modern programs but lacks things like segmentation and real mode. New OS versions would be required, but most modern user mode programs would work with few if any modifications.
- nickpsecurity 10y ago
  They're already sort of doing that on x86-64 but keeping it in there if you need it. I'm particularly going to miss segmentation as it's phased out as it was used in prior, high-security work plus some current work. Example below: http://dslab.epfl.ch/proj/cpi/ http://dslab.epfl.ch/proj/cpi/ In prior comment, I illustrate with Hardbound they can do a lot more than this. It remains compatible at source-level with x86 apps with good performance while enforcing spatial safety. I could imagine a split version where certain components, esp binaries, run totally unsafe just for compatibility while it enforces safety on whatever you can compile. Alternatively, people wanting backward compatibility with no source could run with safety off whereas anyone (or vendor) with source could compile a version that works. Even the binary stuff might be isolated a bit with techniques that decompile, instrument, and recompile the binaries. Or separate, assembly-level methods. So, Intel could do a lot more than it's doing without totally scrapping backward compatibility or performance. They just... don't. I think they're afraid of loosing billions again or just don't know about the stuff I'm mentioning. Or both. (shrugs) Love to talk to them about it sometime.
r00fus 10y ago
AMD64 wasn't just first; EMT64 (intel's version) is essentially the same thing. If it's x86-64, the processor running your laptop is AMD tech. Period.

by rrmm 10y ago

yuhong 10y ago

As an example, it is probably not difficult to create a new x86 version that is user mode compatible with most modern programs but lacks things like segmentation and real mode. New OS versions would be required, but most modern user mode programs would work with few if any modifications.

nickpsecurity 10y ago
They're already sort of doing that on x86-64 but keeping it in there if you need it. I'm particularly going to miss segmentation as it's phased out as it was used in prior, high-security work plus some current work. Example below: http://dslab.epfl.ch/proj/cpi/ http://dslab.epfl.ch/proj/cpi/ In prior comment, I illustrate with Hardbound they can do a lot more than this. It remains compatible at source-level with x86 apps with good performance while enforcing spatial safety. I could imagine a split version where certain components, esp binaries, run totally unsafe just for compatibility while it enforces safety on whatever you can compile. Alternatively, people wanting backward compatibility with no source could run with safety off whereas anyone (or vendor) with source could compile a version that works. Even the binary stuff might be isolated a bit with techniques that decompile, instrument, and recompile the binaries. Or separate, assembly-level methods. So, Intel could do a lot more than it's doing without totally scrapping backward compatibility or performance. They just... don't. I think they're afraid of loosing billions again or just don't know about the stuff I'm mentioning. Or both. (shrugs) Love to talk to them about it sometime.

r00fus 10y ago

AMD64 wasn't just first; EMT64 (intel's version) is essentially the same thing. If it's x86-64, the processor running your laptop is AMD tech. Period.